This is certainly a difficult problem, and I think that as we learn more on this subject people are going to be increasingly uncomfortable with the answers avai

This is certainly a difficult problem, and I think that as we learn more on this subject people are going to be increasingly uncomfortable with the answers available to us and what it means for the products we create. What I feel is that, regardless of regulation on a societal level, it is up to us as individuals to decide what we feel comfortable with in regards to the products we create and the risk of harming others that we are willing to take on. We should be able to acknowledge the fact that - regardless of whether or not addiction is a personal failing or an inescapable biological flaw - intentionally leveraging and profiting off of it is an unethical action. It is exploitation regardless of the nature of the flaw being exploited. It's complicated, because I think there are many types of products that can't avoid the potential for addictive use. In those situations, we have to ask ourselves whether we're targeting that addictive use, or whether it's an undesired side effect that a user may come across - and in that latter situation, to find ways to mitigate those harmful outcomes. If we want to provide outcomes that help our customers and provide them value, we need to be willing to accept that we may have to create awkward-feeling and profit-limiting mitigations. Flawed as it is, education and the promotion of people developing self-awareness about their addictions is a strong tool we have for mitigation as long as it isn't something buried where users won't easily find it. Setting limits or ceilings on spending (spending of both time and money) is another mitigation. Avoiding monetization models such as gambling mechanics that inherently exploit addiction is another. Promoting and sticking to direct sales of products for discrete costs is another. But there is still so much we need to learn, and many potential pitfalls.